Madan Talukdar vs State of Assam

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.—Heard Mr. R.K. Adhikari learned amicus curiae and Mr. B.J. Dutta, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. The material facts of the prosecution case disclose that one Naba Talukdar is the deceased. Accused is the father of the deceased. Wife of the deceased is P.W. 1 and she was working as a cook in the Mid Day Meal Scheme. On 23.10.2009, P.W. 1 brought the ration of the Mid Day Meal Scheme to her house. The accused took objection that the firewood belonging to their house being used for cooking the Mid Day Meal and, therefore, insists payment of Rs. 100/-. P.W. 1 exchanged words with the accused. There was a scuffle between them. P.W. 1 sustained some bruises and abrasions. P.W. 1 also assaulted and kicked the accused in the scuffle. The deceased, who is husband of P.W. 1, comes to the house in the afternoon and he comes to know about the incident. He becomes angry and kicks his mother. The deceased also comes and assaults and tried to throttle the accused. At that time, he was doing wood work. The accused, somehow, escaped from the grip of the deceased. The accused goes inside and brings a wood chiseler and assaults the deceased with the wood chiseler on his chest As a result, the deceased succumbs to the injuries at the spot. The complaint is given by P.W. 1.

Inquest is held on the dead body and dead body is also subjected to post mortem examination. Post mortem report discloses that death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of the injury sustained. The death is said to be homicidal.

Mother of the deceased is a witness to the incident. The prosecution did not examine her. Accused has, however, examined her as Defence Witness to prove that the incident happened in a state of quarrel. P.W. 1 is the wife of the deceased and she is also a witness to the incident and she deposes to the proceeding quarrel between herself and the accused and also testifies the quarrel between accused and the deceased. The trial Court, on the basis of the said evidence, convicted the accused for an offence u/s 304(Part I) IPC and sentenced the accused to R.I. for a period of ten years. Hence, this appeal.

Upon thorough consideration of the facts and evidence, we find that the order of conviction u/s 304 (Part I) IPC appears to be sound and proper because in an emotion charged atmosphere of domestic quarrel, the deceased gets killed. In fact, the deceased has provoked the accused and the deceased is the aggressor in the incident. However, the conduct of the accused in causing the death does not totally exculpate nor exonerate him from the guilt. The order of conviction is, therefore, sound and proper. However, on the question of sentence, we see that the accused is now a man aged about 74 years and he is in jail for the past two years. The accused is in a state of advanced old age. Therefore, keeping in view the period of detention already undergone, the accused is imposed a sentence of R.I. for a period of two years and the accused is deemed to have served the sentence by his pre-trial incursoration and post conviction incursoration.

In that view of the matter, the accused is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other case.

The State shall pay to the learned amicus curiae a sum of Rs. 7,000/-.

The operative part of the order be communicated to the jail authorities and to the learned trial Court. Send back the LCR.